Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Charlotte Hartmann-Hansen, No. B-167257.
Joel M. Scheer, for petitioner.
Steven Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Blatt and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying unemployment benefits to Charlotte Hartmann-Hansen (claimant). The denial of benefits was pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
The claimant was last employed by Northampton County Area Community College (employer) as an assistant professor of dental hygiene. She was one of three full-time faculty members. She held that position for approximately three years prior to her suspension on May 12, 1978.
The record indicates that in August of 1977 the claimant volunteered for the position of Clinic Coordinator. She had originally been assigned to teach Clinic II in the fall semester of that year and Clinic III in the spring semester of 1978. As Clinic Coordinator
or "lead teacher" she assumed the additional duties of coordinating the clinical assignments for the second year dental hygiene students. Those duties included the task of computing the students' grades for the clinical course.
On May 5, 1978 the claimant submitted a memorandum to one Leonard O'Hara, Dean of Allied Health. In the memo, the claimant delineated a list of 17 "additional duties" which she had performed during the year as coordinator. She asked to be relieved of those duties and to return to her regular status as a full time teacher. The memo concluded with the following statement: "Unless informed in writing by May 9, 1978, I will assume you have accepted my request and the return of clinic coordination to the administration where it properly belongs. Should you deny this request, your letter must spell out in detail why it is denied and why I was assigned clinic coordination as excess workload. Furthermore, define the administration's objectives for Clinic III performance and final grading criteria."
In a memorandum dated May 9, 1978, Dean O'Hara denied the claimant's request to be relieved of her duties. He explained that the claimant was expected to fulfill her assignment since the assumed duties were normal for a full-time permanent faculty member.
However, on May 11, 1978 the claimant sent a second memorandum to the dean. In it she reasoned that since the dean had "answered but not responded" to her memo, he had accepted her request to be relieved of her duties as coordinator. She added that she was enclosing the master book for student grades and the requirements for the dean's "use in completing the grading of this course." On that same day, the claimant also sent a memo to the college records ...